If we all came from 2 people

[ding]

I don't need evidence

To "know" something? Of course you do. Come on.

Can you prove what a strawberry tastes like without tasting it?

What evidence can you provide to me that would prove to me what a strawberry tastes like without my having to taste it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you prove what a strawberry tastes like without tasting it?

Poor comparison...you can put the strawberry in my mouth. That is compelling evidence of the taste of a strawberry. You are more making my point than yours or his, in that evidence-based thought (and science) has good methods for weeding out false information. Religion does not.

 

[ding]

Can you prove what a strawberry tastes like without tasting it?

Poor comparison...you can put the strawberry in my mouth. That is compelling evidence of the taste of a strawberry. You are more making my point than yours or his, in that evidence-based thought (and science) has good methods for weeding out false information. Religion does not.

I want you to prove it to me without me having to taste it first.

What evidence do you have that will prove to me what a strawberry tastes like.

 

[ding]

It's the perfect comparison BTW.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I want you to prove it to me without me having to taste it first.

Not appropriate. Tasting it is the evidence you will use to decide if the description is accurate. Whether or not I taste the strawberry, the evidence of its taste still objectively exists and can be used to compel by presenting it. You are still making my point, by asking me to prove something to you without evidence. I cannot. It is not me who believes without evidence, or think he knows things without evidence. That is you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's the perfect comparison BTW.

No, it's a terrible comparison and an old, tired trick. Surely you know that you did not invent this comparison, right?

 

[ding]

I want you to prove it to me without me having to taste it first.

Not appropriate. Tasting it is the evidence you will use to decide if the description is accurate. Whether or not I taste the strawberry, the evidence of its taste still objectively exists and can be used to compel by presenting it. You are still making my point, by asking me to prove something to you without evidence. I cannot. It is not me who believes without evidence, or think he knows things without evidence. That is you.

That was Rod's point about God. Until you open your mind and heart to God (the strawberry), you will never experience (taste) the evidence.

It's the perfect comparison BTW.

No, it's a terrible comparison and an old, tired trick. Surely you know that you did not invent this comparison, right?

No tricks. 100% accurate analogy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was Rod's point about God. Until you open your mind and heart to God (the strawberry), you will never experience (taste) the evidence.

Sorry, bad comparison. That is not evidence.

Yes, it's a trick. I will taste the strawberry if it is in my mouth, regardless of what I believe or what Jaysus had for breakfast.

 

[ding]

That was Rod's point about God. Until you open your mind and heart to God (the strawberry), you will never experience (taste) the evidence.

Sorry, bad comparison. That is not evidence.

Yes, it's a trick. I will taste the strawberry if it is in my mouth, regardless of what I believe or what Jaysus had for breakfast.

But you need to convince me what a strawberry tastes like.

Go ahead. Convince me. Show me your evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was Rod's point about God. Until you open your mind and heart to God (the strawberry), you will never experience (taste) the evidence.

Sorry, bad comparison. That is not evidence.

Yes, it's a trick. I will taste the strawberry if it is in my mouth, regardless of what I believe or what Jaysus had for breakfast.

But you need to convince me what a strawberry tastes like.

Go ahead. Convince me. Show me your evidence.

Easy, I put one in your mouth. There's the evidence. Notice you have to remove the evidence to make a comaprison to your faith. OBVIOUSLY...because that is what faith is. Duh, people. When did you all become so embarrassed of your faith?

 

[ding]

That was Rod's point about God. Until you open your mind and heart to God (the strawberry), you will never experience (taste) the evidence.

Sorry, bad comparison. That is not evidence.

Yes, it's a trick. I will taste the strawberry if it is in my mouth, regardless of what I believe or what Jaysus had for breakfast.

But you need to convince me what a strawberry tastes like.

Go ahead. Convince me. Show me your evidence.

Easy, I put one in your mouth. There's the evidence. Notice you have to remove the evidence to make a comaprison to your faith. OBVIOUSLY...because that is what faith is. Duh, people. When did you all become so embarrassed of your faith?

No. Sorry. You can't make me taste it. You can only try to convince me.

Go ahead. Convince me. Prove to me what a strawberry tastes like.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry. You can't make me taste it.

And there's the trick. I have to convince you without using the evidence. That's a priest's job. I wish him luck.

 

[ding]

Sorry. You can't make me taste it.

And there's the trick. I have to convince you without using the evidence. That's a priest's job. I wish him luck.

No. That would be your job. I already explained this to you.

You can't prove to me what a strawberry tastes like and I can't prove to you what a relationship with God tastes like.

You have already proven to me in the other thread your mind is made up. You were too afraid to answer my questions because you knew I would prove God exists to you. I couldn't make you taste that damn strawberry. You were too much of a coward to face your incongruities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That would be your job.

Yes, you are insisting it is my job to convince you of something without being able to use the evidence for it. I am the first to say that ibwould not attempt such a foolish thing, because I dont expect people to believe things without evidence. It's a very odd and ironic response from you, since it was my argument that you cant know things without evidence. You are literally making my point, over and over and over.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't prove to me what a strawberry tastes like

Of course I can, using the evidence.

 

[ricechickie]

Ah, Fort Fun. This is the rhetorical trap. If you don’t believe in God, it’s because you aren’t “open” to experiencing a relationship with Him. It’s your own fault.

There are religious folk who would rather pray than see a doctor, too. When the kid dies, well, their faith just wasn’t strong enough.

Interestingly, you can see, smell, and feel the strawberry in ding’s analogy. But that’s not the case with God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah, Fort Fun. This is the rhetorical trap.

I know. It's a cheap trick. I don't understand why he feels compelled to compare faith to evidence-based thought and knowledge. why can't faith just be faith, and not faith... not faith?

 

[hobelim]

It is a fairly unanimous consensus among those who study the subject intelligently.

And yes I keep records, I see you when you're sleeping, I know if you're awake. I know if you've been bad or good....

Is the spirit limited based on your intelligence?

Let me put it this way.

If you do not approach the study of scripture intelligently, your spirit will remain without life. Without intelligent thought the development of your spirit to its fullest potential is impossible.

Lack of intelligence, not intelligence, limits the spirit. Living according to the delusions of an unrestrained imagination is not living in the spirit. It is not walking by faith. It is not intelligent. It is not living at all.

Ask Taz.

I suppose this is where we part ways in actual knowledge of the spirit as it isn't one in the same as earthly "intelligence".

I didn't say that they were one in the same, I said there is no spiritual knowledge without intelligence.

If you have not arrived at your beliefs as a result of intelligent rational thought and if you do not see what you believe conform to and confirmed by reality every single day all you really have faith in is a fantasy.

How much rational thought do you think a two or three year old child has?

Some more than others depending on whose teaching them. Most can only grasp the most basic forms of logic...

example: If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding...

Whats your point?

 

[RWNJ]

Ah, Fort Fun. This is the rhetorical trap. If you don’t believe in God, it’s because you aren’t “open” to experiencing a relationship with Him. It’s your own fault.

There are religious folk who would rather pray than see a doctor, too. When the kid dies, well, their faith just wasn’t strong enough.

Interestingly, you can see, smell, and feel the strawberry in ding’s analogy. But that’s not the case with God.

None of which negates the fact that God is real. The universe requires a Creator, since nothing physical can create itself. God is the only rational explanation for the existence of the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The universe requires a Creator, since nothing physical can create itself. God is the only rational explanation

No goofball, it isn't.